For over a decade, the Legal Services Consumer Panel has pressed the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) to publish its decisions in full. Transparency in complaints resolution is not a marginal concern, it is central to accountability, consumer trust, and sector-wide learning.
Despite years of debate, consultation, and pressure from oversight bodies including the Legal Services Board (LSB), LeO continues to resist full disclosure. This institutional reluctance reflects a regulatory culture that remains risk-averse and opaque at a time when other sectors have embraced openness as a fundamental part of their public service mandate.
LeO currently publishes basic information: provider names, complaint outcomes, and general remedies. This data is better than nothing but falls short of what consumers and professionals need. Without full decisions, stakeholders are left with partial narratives and limited insight into the reasoning and precedents behind ombudsman outcomes. In July 2025, LeO published three decisions in full, marking the first time such transparency has been offered, albeit only in “public interest” cases. The symbolism is important, but systemic change is required.
The rationale for full publication is compelling. Consumers gain access to precedent and clarity, enabling them to make better-informed decisions about providers and redress. Legal professionals benefit from concrete examples that illuminate expected standards and potential consequences of poor service. Full publication strengthens trust in the complaints system, allowing scrutiny, comparison, and learning.
Other ombudsman services recognise this. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) offers searchable summaries and full decisions that support early resolution and professional development. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman publishes full decisions within six weeks of resolution to foster fairness and systemic improvement. Both organisations demonstrate that transparency is not only achievable, but also indispensable.
LeO remains an outlier. Its objections—centred around operational disruption, legal risk, and cost estimated at nearly £1 million—have been constantly rehearsed. These concerns are not insignificant, but they are not insurmountable. Other ombudsmen faced similar challenges and responded with safeguards, phased rollouts, and clear guidance. As the Consumer Panel, we believe that LeO’s resistance reflects an outdated mindset, one more concerned with control than progress.
The cost argument must be seen in context. £1 million is a lot of money, but what is the cost of sustained opacity in a public service system? How do we measure the impact on consumer confidence, inconsistent professional learning, and the erosion of public trust? These are intangible losses that accumulate year after year, exacting a toll on everyone who engages with legal services, and undermining LeO’s public standing.
The Legal Services Board acknowledges the importance of transparency and has made this clear to LeO. We believe that the LSB should act decisively but it appears to feel that is power is limited under the LSA 2007. This highlights, yet again, the deficiencies in the regulatory architecture. Without regulatory compulsion, LeO will tread water, and consumers will remain disadvantaged by an incomplete and inconsistent system. The sector needs clarity, accountability, and trust. This starts with making decisions publicly accessible.
Transparency is not an abstract ideal. It is the foundation of justice. It ensures fairness, builds legitimacy, and enables improvement. The Legal Ombudsman must commit to publishing full decisions: not periodically, not selectively, but systemically.
Justice that hides its reasoning is justice in half-light. The sector and the public LeO serves deserves better.
Tom Hayhoe, LSCP Panel Member
